Dear Editor,

The track record of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), in my opinion, is not very good, they’ve lost many cases, especially the high profile ones.

The recent acquittal of the alleged mastermind behind the Andrea Garwood murder inside a church had many people scratching their heads in disbelief, disgusted at a system which continues to fail the public they serve.

Paula Llewellyn, the director of public prosecutions (DPP), has served over 17 years in the role. She has tried, but with the high volume of cases and lack of resources, the ODPP may well be in need of a full review and restructuring to meet the current demands of the office and bring it into modernity. The ODPP seems to rely mostly on witness statements, which is not easy to obtain in our culture due to fear.

Llewellyn cannot be the only person in the country qualified for the post. No one is opposed to extending the age of retirement, but how it was rushed seems to favour one person, hence the controversy. It was not surprising that the Bill was passed within days. Justice Minister Delroy Chuck claimed that the amendment wasn’t new, but had been pending for years.

The ODPP has been criticised in the media over the years and the criticisms should be viewed as red flags. According to Peter Bunting, leader of Opposition business in the Senate, the Office of the Contractor General and the Organisation of American States have both criticised the ODPP for failing to prosecute corruption. The ODPP’s response is always that of being defensive about its leadership, operations, and record, even as it points out the many challenges and constraints within the office.

Imagine, the State is now being sued by a double-murder convict, who is challenging the legality of the DPP’s extension, accusing her of acting illegally for the past three years. That the suit is being heard in a court is an embarrassment to those in charge of the judiciary, even if the courts rule in her favour. With all due respect, we must end the practice of rewarding failure and not performance. The office is in need of new energy, new perspectives, new direction, and new vision. Like a dated school principal, Llewellyn has lost touch with the programme and the mandate of the office.

Llewellyn, over the years, has become good at explaining why a case was lost and why a case crumbled. If a senior prosecutor and a deputy in the ODPP wrote to Prime Minister Andrew Holness to request a halt to the amendment of the law to extend the age of retirement for the DPP and requests a full review of the ODPP, citing reasons, it shouldn’t be seen as a personal attack. The DPP, however, seems to have taken it personally and responded in a lengthy press release, which I believe is unbecoming. Even as she referred to the deputy multiple times as a good attorney, she described her as being insubordinate and threatened consequences for writing the 11-page letter which, she said, has brought the ODPP into disrepute. How dare the deputy question the operations of the ODPP?

The DPP should’ve taken the high road, remained silent, and allowed internal processes to follow, that is, if there was, in fact, a breach of conduct and insubordination.

A critical effort in fighting crime is having an effective judicial system that works, a system with an emphasis on prosecution, a system that is dependable, trustworthy, and rooted in respect from the public. I don’t think this is too much to ask for.

P Chin

chin_p@yahoo.com